Coaching decisions | The Boneyard

Coaching decisions

Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,016
Reaction Score
161,510
A lot of us are critical of some of Hurley's in game coaching but holy hell what did I just watch the Chargers coach do? He may have just got Pete Carroll and Mornhinweg off the hook for worst coaching decisions ever.

If Hurley ever pulled something like that this board would explode.
 
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
13,119
Reaction Score
86,994
I'm confused by this reaction from everyone, it didn't change anything. The Raiders were still playing a FG before the timeout so it was completely meaningless. They lost because their run defense sucks and couldn't get a stop on 3rd down
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,175
Reaction Score
3,194
I'm confused by this reaction from everyone, it didn't change anything. The Raiders were still playing a FG before the timeout so it was completely meaningless. They lost because their run defense sucks and couldn't get a stop on 3rd down
There was an open question as to whether they were going to go for a FG or just run the clock out and both walk into the playoffs. At the time of the Charger TO, they were at the far end of their kickers range. Usually that’s a lower kick to get extra distance and more susceptible to being blocked and returned. The TO may have just pissed off the Raiders enough for them to go for the win. No one knows if they would have gone for the FG (though of course the players and coach are all going to publicly say that was their plan). Even the announcers couldn’t come up with a reason why LA’s coach called for the TO… just let sleeping dogs lie.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
1,181
Reaction Score
6,750
There was an open question as to whether they were going to go for a FG or just run the clock out and both walk into the playoffs. At the time of the Charger TO, they were at the far end of their kickers range. Usually that’s a lower kick to get extra distance and more susceptible to being blocked and returned. The TO may have just pissed off the Raiders enough for them to go for the win. No one knows if they would have gone for the FG (though of course the players and coach are all going to publicly say that was their plan). Even the announcers couldn’t come up with a reason why LA’s coach called for the TO… just let sleeping dogs lie.
He called the TO to get his best run defense on the field. This isn't that complicated.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,895
Reaction Score
32,872
The calculus here is very, very complicated, and we shouldn't over-simplify it.

On 2nd and 11 at the 46, LV ran for 7 yards, setting up 3rd and 4 at the 39 with 0:38 left. That's on the outskirts of the kicker's range, but indoors, is doable. Let's consider the options.

A) If the Chargers let the clock run down, it's likely that LV lets the clock run down, takes a timeout at 0:03, and gets a FG attempt from 57 yards.

B) If the Chargers call timeout, then they force LV to run a play on 3rd and 4.
  • If they stop them and call another timeout at, say, 0:30, then LV is faced with the difficult decision of either going for it on 4th and short at the 37 or attempting a ~55 yard field goal with time on the clock, or punting and basically guaranteeing both teams a playoff spot.
  • If they don't stop them, then we get the outcome that happened

The Chargers were betting that by calling timeout, they gave themselves a chance to make a stop on 3rd down and that doing so would compel LV to punt because LV would not want to risk giving LAC the ball back in good field position with 30 seconds left.

Calling timeout there was the only chance they had to avoid giving LV a freebie FG attempt.


And, frankly, the 57 yard attempt would not have been much more difficult than the 48 yard attempt that they gave up.

I completely agree with calling the timeout because, as we now know, LV would not have simply run out the clock.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,016
Reaction Score
161,510
I'm confused by this reaction from everyone, it didn't change anything. The Raiders were still playing a FG before the timeout so it was completely meaningless. They lost because their run defense sucks and couldn't get a stop on 3rd down
It absolutely changed everything. Raiders were going to let the clock run out on a token play where they had no interest in extending the game, it seems pretty clear Bissaccia thought there was a sort of unspoken agreement. All Staley did was piss off the Raiders by looking at his nerd chart and thinking he was the smartest guy in the room.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
12,088
Reaction Score
63,208
The calculus here is very, very complicated, and we shouldn't over-simplify it.

On 2nd and 11 at the 46, LV ran for 7 yards, setting up 3rd and 4 at the 39 with 0:38 left. That's on the outskirts of the kicker's range, but indoors, is doable. Let's consider the options.

A) If the Chargers let the clock run down, it's likely that LV lets the clock run down, takes a timeout at 0:03, and gets a FG attempt from 57 yards.

B) If the Chargers call timeout, then they force LV to run a play on 3rd and 4.
  • If they stop them and call another timeout at, say, 0:30, then LV is faced with the difficult decision of either going for it on 4th and short at the 37 or attempting a ~55 yard field goal with time on the clock, or punting and basically guaranteeing both teams a playoff spot.
  • If they don't stop them, then we get the outcome that happened

The Chargers were betting that by calling timeout, they gave themselves a chance to make a stop on 3rd down and that doing so would compel LV to punt because LV would not want to risk giving LAC the ball back in good field position with 30 seconds left.

Calling timeout there was the only chance they had to avoid giving LV a freebie FG attempt.


And, frankly, the 57 yard attempt would not have been much more difficult than the 48 yard attempt that they gave up.

I completely agree with calling the timeout because, as we now know, LV would not have simply run out the clock.
I don't think you have this timing right. They called the timeout with 5 seconds left on the playclock at :38. They could not have run the clock down to 0:03 unless they had run another play, so Scenario A isn't applicable. It's only Scenario B.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,895
Reaction Score
32,872
I don't think you have this timing right. They called the timeout with 5 seconds left on the playclock at :38. They could not have run the clock down to 0:03 unless they had run another play, so Scenario A isn't applicable. It's only Scenario B.
OK, so then what's the problem with the timeout at all?

If LV has to run a play on 3rd down regardless, why is it assumed that LV would have given up instead of trying to gain yardage to make the FG easier?
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
1,181
Reaction Score
6,750
It absolutely changed everything. Raiders were going to let the clock run out on a token play where they had no interest in extending the game, it seems pretty clear Bissaccia thought there was a sort of unspoken agreement. All Staley did was piss off the Raiders by looking at his nerd chart and thinking he was the smartest guy in the room.


They were not kneeling the ball. They were gonna run it whether he called a TO or not. This is one of the biggest overreactions I’ve ever seen.
 
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
13,119
Reaction Score
86,994
It absolutely changed everything. Raiders were going to let the clock run out on a token play where they had no interest in extending the game, it seems pretty clear Bissaccia thought there was a sort of unspoken agreement. All Staley did was piss off the Raiders by looking at his nerd chart and thinking he was the smartest guy in the room.
No the Raiders were about to snap the ball and run the ball up the middle to set up a FG attempt, a play the Chargers were not ready for. So they called a timeout and the Raiders ran the ball up the middle to set up a FG attempt
 

nomar

#1 Casual Fan™
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,331
Reaction Score
39,527
I'm confused by this reaction from everyone, it didn't change anything. The Raiders were still playing a FG before the timeout so it was completely meaningless. They lost because their run defense sucks and couldn't get a stop on 3rd down

Hi Bill!

The Raiders wanted to win given their playoff seeding possibilities, but they wanted to not lose more than anything. They got in a position in which it would have been virtually impossible to lose and then slowed things down to ensure that they would be the only team with a chance to win. The Chargers' only motivation was to avoid losing. When the game came down to one play, the Raiders overwhelmed the league's worst run defense to set up a season-ending field goal. The Chargers didn't lose because they poked the bear with a too-cute timeout. They lost because they got overpowered by a more physical team with their season on the line. For all the modern external factors surrounding this game, that's the oldest, simplest football story in the book.

 

nomar

#1 Casual Fan™
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,331
Reaction Score
39,527
It absolutely changed everything. Raiders were going to let the clock run out on a token play where they had no interest in extending the game, it seems pretty clear Bissaccia thought there was a sort of unspoken agreement. All Staley did was piss off the Raiders by looking at his nerd chart and thinking he was the smartest guy in the room.

Pretty clear? Putting aside your conjecture, what do you have to support your theory?

The Raiders were going to run the ball before the TO, and then they ran the ball after the TO.

Do you think the Raiders wanted the Chiefs or the Bengals? Who enters a handshake to tie a football game? This wasn't mutually assured destruction. The Raiders had the clear upper hand.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,016
Reaction Score
161,510
No the Raiders were about to snap the ball and run the ball up the middle to set up a FG attempt, a play the Chargers were not ready for. So they called a timeout and the Raiders ran the ball up the middle to set up a FG attempt
Called a timeout to change the defense to not stop the run when they were already set up to stop the run and the other team was happy with the tie, that's brilliant coaching.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,016
Reaction Score
161,510
Pretty clear? Putting aside your conjecture, what do you have to support your theory?

The Raiders were going to run the ball before the TO, and then they ran the ball after the TO.

Do you think the Raiders wanted the Chiefs or the Bengals? Who enters a handshake to tie a football game? This wasn't mutually assured destruction. The Raiders had the clear upper hand.
Watching the game and then Bisaccia and Carr after the game.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
12,088
Reaction Score
63,208
OK, so then what's the problem with the timeout at all?

If LV has to run a play on 3rd down regardless, why is it assumed that LV would have given up instead of trying to gain yardage to make the FG easier?
People have speculated it gave the Raiders time to re-evaluate the strategy and supposedly players on the Raiders have said they changed their minds. But I'm skeptical of that, I don't see a reason why it would have. The taking off the LB while expecting run is a little bit stranger, but I don't know enough to say if that new package was a better run defense against 11 personnel or whatever.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,016
Reaction Score
161,510


They were not kneeling the ball. They were gonna run it whether he called a TO or not. This is one of the biggest overreactions I’ve ever seen.

I never said they were kneeling the ball.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,016
Reaction Score
161,510
So what difference does the TO make? They were going to just let the clock go when the picked up the first???? Carr literally said their focus was on winning the game.
I don't think they were going to run anything to try and pick up the first down. Calling the timeout changed the calculus, I think it pissed off Bisaccia and gave him time to think about risk/reward.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
1,181
Reaction Score
6,750
I don't think they were going to run anything to try and pick up the first down. Calling the timeout changed the calculus, I think it pissed off Bisaccia and gave him time to think about risk/reward.
Ok... So you are just guessing they wouldn't have gotten the first down, seems like sounds logic.
 
Last edited:

nomar

#1 Casual Fan™
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,331
Reaction Score
39,527
I don't think they were going to run anything to try and pick up the first down. Calling the timeout changed the calculus, I think it pissed off Bisaccia and gave him time to think about risk/reward.

Then why not kneel?

Seems pretty clear from Carr's and Biscaccia's statements that they were going to run a play and that the TO gave them an opportunity to run a better one, no?

You can say it was a dumb TO that cost the Chargers without speculating that it "pissed" off Biscaccia.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,016
Reaction Score
161,510
Ok... So you are you just guessing they wouldn't have gotten the first down, seems like sounds logic.
No, Carr or the running back could've taken themselves out of the play or a weak ball security run right up the middle to make it look somewhat like you're still trying to compete but with no real intent on getting the first down. I thought it was pretty clear Bisaccia was playing for the tie and he thought Staley was as well until the timeout. The timeout changed everything.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
1,181
Reaction Score
6,750
No, Carr or the running back could've taken themselves out of the play or a weak ball security run right up the middle to make it look somewhat like you're still trying to compete but with no real intent on getting the first down. I thought it was pretty clear Bisaccia was playing for the tie and he thought Staley was as well until the timeout. The timeout changed everything.
What about the TO makes you think the Chargers weren't content with a tie? If they were playing to win they would've called the TO immediately after the second down play. The Chargers just wanted to put the best personnel out to make the stop on third down to give them the best chance at a tie.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,016
Reaction Score
161,510
What about the TO makes you think the Chargers weren't content with a tie? If they were playing to win they would've called the TO immediately after the second down play. The Chargers just wanted to put the best personnel out to make the stop on third down to give them the best chance at a tie.
I already told you, I think it pissed off Bisaccia, gave what was taking place a minute to marinate and for him to decide what to do. Before that it sure seemed to be an organically developing situation where they had a sort of an unspoken agreement on what was happening and how the game would play out, at least on Bisaccia's end. The timeout changed everything.

I never said the Chargers weren't content with a tie. They should've been ecstatic with a tie but I think the timeout kind of forced Bisaccia's hand or at least made him want to run it down their throats and end it.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
1,181
Reaction Score
6,750
I already told you, I think it pissed off Bisaccia, gave what was taking place a minute to marinate and for him to decide what to do. Before that it sure seemed to be an organically developing situation where they had a sort of an unspoken agreement on what was happening and how the game would play out, at least on Bisaccia's end. The timeout changed everything.

I never said the Chargers weren't content with a tie. They should've been ecstatic with a tie but I think the timeout kind of forced Bisaccia's hand or at least made him want to run it down their throats and end it.
Bisaccia is a moron if that is what happened
 

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
2,745
Total visitors
2,823

Forum statistics

Threads
155,799
Messages
4,032,038
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom